Terry Lambert writes:
> I don't think Joe is debating; I think he wants to have a
> meta-discussion about what the problem space looks like,
> before submitting patches that light up his little corner,
> and dark up everything else.
Thank you, Terry. Maybe I need to bring up the issue on -ar
* Nat Lanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020207 10:30] wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that
> > unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little
> > feature request. Furthermore asking for p
David O'Brien writes:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to be
> > a modular compiler system, and that all we are asking
hi, there!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> So what? Just because it wasn't part of 4.2 BSD, does that mean that we
> should never support it?
>
> > 2. What is so hard with installing the port. No one has answered *THAT*
> > question yet.
>
> Ports are ins
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to be
> a modular compiler system, and that all we are asking for is the ability
> to add to the
Joe Kelsey wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > 3. Are you going to maintain them? If we did do this work and allowed
> > people to optinally install gjc and Ada, I bet only 5% would do so
> > (other than the initial turning it on just to see what the compilers
> > looked like).
>
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> So what? When I install gcc on a non-native platform (such as HP-UX or
> Solaris),
> > Again, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM you are trying to solve? Just laziness of not
> > being willing to type ``pkg_add -r gcc30'' or ``pkg_add -r gcc3
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that
> unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little
> feature request. Furthermore asking for patches is the exact
> opposite of being smug at least in the w
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Uh Joe... WhereTF is your patch to do this?
> > > My or your MTA seems to have deleted it.
> >
> > This is the atypical, smug, "I'm a committer and your're not" attitude
> > that permeates so much of the upper echelons of the FreeBSD team. It
> > really makes me si
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:40:31AM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was suppos
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:30:22PM -0500, Nat Lanza wrote:
> Surely you see the difference between "That's an interesting idea; can
> you generate some patches so we can take a look and see how it works
> out?" and "WhereTF is your patch to do this?".
Yes there is. Earlier on in the thread I wou
* Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020207 09:36] wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to
> Wasn't Eric Melville going to fix this by turning the normal
> system components into packages? 8-) 8-).
Yeah, I'm just rather busy between work and school these days. I'm giving a
little presentation on this at BSDCon, hopefully I can rope some more folks
in to the project.
To Unsubscribe: s
David O'Brien wrote:
> > stuff; the ports stuff will be more problematic, of course,
> > but much of that is already broken, in that the system
> > compiler is passed, but the g++ compiler is searched out
> > and preferred (!@#!$!@ autoconf/automake).
>
> env CXX=foo++ ./configure
I had to b
On 7 Feb 2002, Nat Lanza wrote:
>
> Surely you see the difference between "That's an interesting idea; can
> you generate some patches so we can take a look and see how it works
> out?" and "WhereTF is your patch to do this?".
>
> One provides an opportunity for users to contribute, and the oth
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:55:26PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> stuff; the ports stuff will be more problematic, of course,
> but much of that is already broken, in that the system
> compiler is passed, but the g++ compiler is searched out
> and preferred (!@#!$!@ autoconf/automake).
env CXX
David O'Brien wrote:
> > And hacking the Makefile a lot to specify command line
> > arguments in the compiler program definition itself, so
> > that the /usr/include/g++ files that came with the old
> > compiler are not used for "make release" and other types
> > of make targets where DESTDIR is f
Terry Lambert writes:
> I don't think Joe is debating; I think he wants to have a
> meta-discussion about what the problem space looks like,
> before submitting patches that light up his little corner,
> and dark up everything else.
Thank you, Terry. Maybe I need to bring up the issue on -ar
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Uh Joe... WhereTF is your patch to do this?
> > > My or your MTA seems to have deleted it.
> >
> > This is the atypical, smug, "I'm a committer and your're not" attitude
> > that permeates so much of the upper echelons of the FreeBSD team. It
> > really makes me si
* Nat Lanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020207 10:30] wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that
> > unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little
> > feature request. Furthermore asking for p
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:30:22PM -0500, Nat Lanza wrote:
> Surely you see the difference between "That's an interesting idea; can
> you generate some patches so we can take a look and see how it works
> out?" and "WhereTF is your patch to do this?".
Yes there is. Earlier on in the thread I wou
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:40:31AM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was suppos
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:59, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> These comments are not useless, most committers have day jobs that
> unfortunetly preclude them from having time to work on every little
> feature request. Furthermore asking for patches is the exact
> opposite of being smug at least in the w
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:00:19AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Max Khon wrote:
> > please calm down. seems that you have never installed gcc from ports.
> >
> > gcc 2.95 from ports is installed as gcc295/g++295
> > and correctly gets its bits from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/xxx,
> > gcc 3.0x from p
* Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020207 09:36] wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to
David O'Brien writes:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to be
> > a modular compiler system, and that all we are asking
Max Khon wrote:
> please calm down. seems that you have never installed gcc from ports.
>
> gcc 2.95 from ports is installed as gcc295/g++295
> and correctly gets its bits from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/xxx,
> gcc 3.0x from ports is named gcc30/g++30 and so on.
> There is no PATH issue. Switching be
Nat Lanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You know, people might be less persistent about these "idiotic"
> suggestions if they got treated with some civility and respect.
>From what I read, the participants in this thread were very civil and
respectful. I don't think the original poster had given
hi, there!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> So what? Just because it wasn't part of 4.2 BSD, does that mean that we
> should never support it?
>
> > 2. What is so hard with installing the port. No one has answered *THAT*
> > question yet.
>
> Ports are ins
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 23:46, Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Yes, absolutely. Every minute David spends replying to these idiotic
> suggestions wastes valuable project time. How many FreeBSD users need
> to compile Java to machine code? 2, 3, 4 people? How hard is it to
> use `pkg_add -r' and rearrange
> : How many MB does your flash card where you're installing
> : FreeBSD have on it?
>
> I've installed a subsetted FreeBSD onto a 8MB CF card. For normal
> FreeBSD (as oppsoed to pico), the smallest amount of space you need is
> about 6.9M, and that can be stripped down to about 5M with compres
At 5:23 PM -0800 2/6/02, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a
>version of gcc that is officially supported and that also
>includes *all* of the standard platforms that come as part of
>the gcc release.
This line of reasoning does not scale up well.
It
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2: We need to get a *basic* compiler up and running first. Give David
> a break, ok? There are far bigger problems to deal with first before
> futzing around on obscure languages that we have no critical need for
> in the base system. We ***
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: How many MB does your flash card where you're installing
: FreeBSD have on it?
I've installed a subsetted FreeBSD onto a 8MB CF card. For normal
FreeBSD (as oppsoed to pico), the smallest amount of space you
Joe Kelsey wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > 3. Are you going to maintain them? If we did do this work and allowed
> > people to optinally install gjc and Ada, I bet only 5% would do so
> > (other than the initial turning it on just to see what the compilers
> > looked like).
>
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> > to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to be
> > a modular compiler system,
You thought wrong. 8-).
> > a
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> So what? When I install gcc on a non-native platform (such as HP-UX or
> Solaris),
> > Again, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM you are trying to solve? Just laziness of not
> > being willing to type ``pkg_add -r gcc30'' or ``pkg_add -r gcc3
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:47:07PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> What is so hard about allowing someone to specify the list of frontends
> to provide at system build time? I thought that gcc was supposed to be
> a modular compiler system, and that all we are asking for is the ability
> to add to the
Joe Kelsey wrote:
> David O'Brien writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a version
> > > of gcc that is officially supported and that also includes *all* of the
> > > standard platforms that com
David O'Brien wrote:
> You do realize that means Ada for 3.1 don't you? Pascal in the the works.
> Also that means bringing in Chill also for 2.95 and later.
Ugh.
> 1. They are not needed by the base system, nor are the part of a
> traditional BSD system.
Very valid point.
> 2. What is
David O'Brien writes:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a version
> > of gcc that is officially supported and that also includes *all* of the
> > standard platforms that come as part of the gcc release
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a version
> of gcc that is officially supported and that also includes *all* of the
> standard platforms that come as part of the gcc release.
You do realize that means Ada f
It is plain that many people will want to be able to install a version
of gcc that is officially supported and that also includes *all* of the
standard platforms that come as part of the gcc release.
What is so wrong with being able to specify a compilation flag that says
"install all of the extr
43 matches
Mail list logo
